Couldn't the FCC just rescind approval if there's interference with GPS? Or at least, with DoD GPS?
Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
211–220 of 224 posts
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#212Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could think about it that way, but you should also know that Himmler created the SS which swore allegiance to Hitler. The SS also existed before Hitler became the chancellor of Germany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS#Origins_(1929%E2%80%...
> Himmler created the SS Not that it matters to your argument but as a point of trivia, Himmler did not create the SS. While SS member #1 was Adolf Hitler, SS member #2 was Emil Maurice, Hitler's Jewish friend and driver since the early days of the party.
I guess I'm conflating Waffen-SS with the SS itself (which is a superset). Waffen-SS is the military branch, and it says this on Wikipedia:
> Originally, it was under the control of the SS Führungshauptamt (SS operational command office) beneath Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler.
Which I interpreted ("originally") as being Himmler's creation.
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
What, no "sheeple"?
You're making a joke, but I find it strange that people in the US aren't more skeptical of the government, especially the military and militarized police forces. To think the US is somehow unable to become a totalitarian state is naive. In Germany people didn't think it was going to happen either, many Germans didn't believe the atrocities were even happening and some remain in denial about them today.
> To think the US is somehow unable to become a totalitarian state is naive.
As is thinking that "it is unlikely" is somehow the same as "unable". There's broad-brush painting going on here, but I don't think it's necessarily only where you think it is.
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
I want 5G. There, you heard it. I’m not a telecom CEO and I’m not a politician. Edit: I want fast, reliable telecommunications everywhere I go. I want ultra fast reliable telecom in crowded cities. I want cellular that is competitive with cable internet. I want bandwidth available for IoT devices.
> I want cellular that is competitive with cable internet. I want bandwidth available for IoT devices. It never will be though. Whatever frequencies you can do wirelessly you can do over a wire without the interference of other users using the same frequency at the same time. Also a lot of promises 5G offers only sound good on paper. The higher frequencies don't travel well through walls (that's why it uses lower fre…
Ever been in a crowded area and couldn't get a connection to anything with your phone? UWB 5G is going to solve that problem.
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
>everyone knows that would break GPS (which already operate well below the noise floor). Can you explain the noise floor bit?
There exists a fundamental level of electrical noise at all frequencies typically controlled by the background temperature that sets the minimum level of signal you can resolve before it gets washed out in noise. GPS uses multiple coherent (noise being random instead of coherent does not combine at the same rate) copies of the signal that can be recombined to increase their effective signal, so even though they are t…
Thanks, that's very interesting. Appreciated.
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What experience is 5G, assuming you actually have access to it, going to improve? Remotely operated robotics due to the much lower latency. Think near instant reaction times while operating a drone with VR goggles, and all the implication this could have. Also many other use cases become more feasible: - Self driving cars with human fallbacks - Safer car racing - Actually smart delivery, where a single person can m…
I'll bite, can you expand just a smidge on "safer car racing"? I'm trying to figure out how 5G enables that and failing.
Put the racers in simulators that control real race cars remotely. iRacing with more real stakes.
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#218An interesting threat vector arises here for Huawei... Ignore all the stuff about backdoors and such for a minute. I wonder if the administration fears that Huawai could simply attenuate their cell tower signals at a high wattage to disrupt all sorts of things. I never thought of that before - "5G as a weapon". Definitely a weird world. I need to start reading Judge Dredd again to start getting caught up on the futur…
5G is most certainly a weapon. If nothing else, it is a steroid injection to the surveillance state.
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
I want 5G. There, you heard it. I’m not a telecom CEO and I’m not a politician. Edit: I want fast, reliable telecommunications everywhere I go. I want ultra fast reliable telecom in crowded cities. I want cellular that is competitive with cable internet. I want bandwidth available for IoT devices.
> I want cellular that is competitive with cable internet. I want bandwidth available for IoT devices. It never will be though. Whatever frequencies you can do wirelessly you can do over a wire without the interference of other users using the same frequency at the same time. Also a lot of promises 5G offers only sound good on paper. The higher frequencies don't travel well through walls (that's why it uses lower fre…
People always talk about 5G signals not travelling well through walls. I wonder if they also get held up trying to travel through the human brain.
Re: Pentagon official: FCC decision on 5G threatens GPS, national security
#220The history of lightsquared, the company involved, is horrendous. They bought spectrum with a SPECIFIC restriction on it to avoid GPS interference - then proceeded to get a proposal approved that violates that restriction. The amount of bad faith dealing by this company was eye opening. I thought Garmin / Trimble and basically every GPS company had sued them because of how terrible their proposals and behavior has be…
It's more or less the same process where a developer buys land cheap and then with the help of a corrupt government rezones that land to something more valuable.
Not totally the same - its worse.
The FCC licenses bandwidth, no one owns it.
The FCC can rezone, they generally then run an auction, keep lots of $$ for the govt, and kick some back to others if needed especially if they force folks like TV stations to move their station broadcasts.
Lightsquared 100% lied when they said they would use the spectrum to serve 100% of users with a sat service. That was a necessary process for the original transfer (like for like use).
And the value they are getting is huge. 40MHz of nationwide bandwidth. Easily worth 10Billion plus.
Be totally fine for FCC to rezone using a normal process, auction to normal business at fair market value, protecting or compensating existing users.